Tuesday, March 28, 2017

The President’s Handlers And His Health

This piece was
triggered by a tweet I stumbled on recently. Emanating from the tweeter handle
of one George Okusanya, it read, ‘Femi
Adesina: “The president is not sick”.

Lai Mohammed: “The president is hale and hearty”.

GMB: “I
couldn’t recall ever being so sick”.’

*Buhari

Clearly, the tweet juxtaposes the words of Femi
Adesina, the Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to President Muhammadu
Buhari, and Lai Mohammed, the President’s Minister of Information and Culture,
on the one hand, and those of the President on the other hand. By this
contrasting placement, the tweet seems to provide proof of the allegation that
the President’s handlers had misinformed Nigerians about the state of his
health while he was in theUKon medical leave, in consequence of
which they have drawn flak from a legion of critics.

I, for one, had been taken aback by the morbid
interest shown by some Nigerians in knowing the exact state of the President’s
health while he was receiving medical treatment abroad. And this is why: I had
thought such people would be more concerned about the resultant indignity for
our country that, 56 years after Independence, our President, the President of
the country that prides itself as the “Giant of Africa” and “the most populous
black nation in the world”, still travels to a foreign country, the country of
our colonial masters, to receive medical treatment for a protracted period,
during which he might be splayed repeatedly on an operating table,
anesthetized, and carved open by foreign scalpels.

This image and its situation should make any
Nigerian patriot shudder with disgust. And, with the image on our minds, I’m
sure we can understand why no self-respecting leader of any self-respecting
nation goes to a foreign country for medical treatment. It is about national
pride and unrelated to the size or population of the country. Therefore
big, small and medium-sized countries like theUnited States,Russia,China,Cuba,North KoreaandSouth Africahave so developed their health sectors
that their citizens can hardly imagine their leaders going to another country
for medical treatment, considering the national risk – need I specify such? –
and humiliation involved.

But not us Nigerians: an assortment of largely
unreflective citizens with practically no sense of nationalism or national
pride, who emphasise their disunity as though it were an asset. We would rather
concern themselves with unnecessary inquiries about the actual state of the
President’s health as if a negative prognosis would alleviate our suffering
under the current harsh economy. And did we really expect to receive such
report from the President’s handlers rather than his doctors who are ethically
forbidden from making such disclosures?

I say the inquiries were unnecessary not only
because of the ethical barrier of confidentiality against divulging the medical
records of their patients which doctors must observe, but also because the
President already said he was going on medical leave, with the implication that
he needed to look after his health. Perhaps, anyone who in spite of that chose
to indulge in the folly of inquiring about the state of his health deserves the
answer that he was “not sick” or “hale and hearty”, as given by his handlers.

Besides, those who accuse the President’s
handlers of lying about the state of his health show lack of understanding that
in certain circumstances it is wiser to speak with discretion than tell the
literal truth. Abraham demonstrated this in the Bible when, driven by the
instinct for self-preservation, told King Abimelech that Sarah was not his wife
but his sister, with Sarah concurring.

Those who condemn the President’s handlers
having literally given him a clean bill of health in contrast with the
President’s words may also not be familiar with what Plato calls “the noble
lie”, which the great Greek philosopher approves.

Wikipedia defines this, in relation to
politics, as “a myth or untruth …knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain
social harmony…” And, indeed, negative information about a President’s health
can upset social harmony – and even the economy – in a state. This explains why
negative information about the health of leaders of nations is managed with
utmost care, with the tendency not to divulge such except when it becomes
unavoidable, though such leaders may choose to do so themselves as in Buhari’s
case.

The potential harm such a revelation can cause
becomes easier to appreciate for a country currently marked by social,
religious, ethnic and economic volatility like ours. And if President Buhari’s
handlers had this in mind while maintaining that he was “not sick” or was “hale
and hearty” though he was receiving medical attention, then they acted
patriotically. Rather than criticise them, I think we should concern ourselves
with stopping our country from offshoring presidential sickness – both the
pathological and the moral.

For we should all feel distressed by the moral
disease of being citizens of a country that allocates billions yearly to its
health sector, yet its leader cannot find a reliable hospital within its
borders to attend to his medical needs at critical times. Actually, Buhari’s
trip to theUKon medical leave implied his having
passed a vote of no confidence on our health sector.

Former “military President” Ibrahim Babangida
did the same thing by travelling toFrancein 1985 to treat his radiculopathy,
spawning an absurd media circus while abroad. The late President Umaru Yar’adua
repeated it by travelling toSaudi Arabiato treat the sickness from which,
unfortunately, he didn’t recover. In fact, our leaders discourage us from
believing in our country by acting in ways that suggest their lack of faith in
it, like not trusting its medical facilities.

Now, President Buhari repeating the practice 32
years after Babangida’s case also implies his admission that our health sector
has not improved for presidential reliance for that long. And that we have not
learnt from Yar’adua’s case that travelling abroad for medical treatment may
not guarantee a cure for a leader who is in a position to develop his country’s
health sector but fails to do so. But, more importantly, I believe he would
agree that a leader in his position, a symbol of change, having to travel
abroad for medical treatment may be expedient but not right.

And if, considering this, he sees to the
improvement of our health sector to stop our embarrassing offshoring of
presidential sickness, then the current negative experience would have been
somewhat beneficial and not lacking the proverbial silver lining.